Funny, indeed, Milton -- one of the milestones we managed to reach in Brazil, for example, in the telecom regulatory framework process, is that once a proposal of rule is made by the regulator, it goes to public scrutiny before approval. It is not perfect, but I would not like to see this in the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats or an automated (and/or closed) process without due scrutiny. Otherwise, what would we be doing within ICANN? Would GAC members go there to discuss bit positioning in an IP header? Of course not. A gTLD (or sTLD) is not just a .com subdomain, obviously. frt rgds --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> 4/4/2007 3:35 PM >>> >> regarding the vote (if I voted, of course). However, I think >> there is a lesson from this process (I understand ICANN >> learns from these processes): the more criteria derived >>from public comments and other inputs can become >> components of (or enrich) the standard "book of procedures" >> the better. > > Funny, I draw the exact opposite conclusion. The less public comment > and the more the process is completely neutral and objective, the > better. Comments, challenges, objections simply politicize and > problematize everything needlessly. > > As I pointed out in Lisbon, there are millions of registrations and > transfers of registrations in .com daily, and no one has big fights over > them. Or if they do have disputes, they are based not on subjective > feelings about what is appropriate globally, but on established legal > rights regarding trademark, etc. And these disputes come AFTER the > registration, not before. > > The .com string is nevertheless globally available, just as a TLD would > be. So what is the difference? > > Asking people for their opinion about what everyone else in the world > should do is just asking for trouble. It would stretch any institutional > process to its limit and beyond. The only result is to permit only the > most innocuous and probably meaningless and useless ideas to survive. > Anything controversial or interesting will not survive. > > That is what we mean when we talk about "censorship." The effect is a > complete stifling of robust content and expression. Such a result is > inherent in any prior approval process that allows any group in the > world to object to what some other group is doing. > >> I also think it has become crystal clear that TLDs which >> ombination of letters might confront resistance (of cultural, >> legal or similar nature) in one or more countries or >> communities, should in principle be discarded > > Completely wrong, imho. > I understand that you are trying to show respect for different > cultures, etc. But the true effect of trying to do so is simply to > immobilize everyone. If everyone has a veto on what is published, > nothing is published. > > > > . > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ***************************************************************